It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

if the 2012 presidential election was tomorrow, who would you vote for?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 





My first choice would be Bernie Sanders


Count me in for that one as well....i agree with him on the majority of things...the only politician (although definitely not running) I know of that I can say that about.
edit on 4-1-2012 by David9176 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


since your sanders vote was just seconded, i'm removing one from obama and adding 2 for sanders.


paul- 7
nobody- 2
gary johnson- 1
obama- 1
sanders- 2



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Hey people voting for nobody why not Jon Huntsman??? He's a moderate like Romney only not in the pockets of Wall Street and not a bit crazy like Ron Paul sometimes appears to be. Utah is the best state in the nation at the moment and we need someone like Huntsman!!!! Obviously I'm going with Huntsman.
edit on 4-1-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Indellkoffer
 


Thanks for explaining that process to ModernAcademia but if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to "get it." Some people insist on blaming Obama for everything Congress does regardless of whether or not he even has the power to change it. Furthermore, I believe that the President added a signing statement to the bill which stated that his administration would not imprison american citizens without trial or due process. At some point in the future, when a republican president actually uses this law to falsely imprison an american citizen, I fully expect the GOP and their talking heads to insist that it was Obama who made them do it. That's how they roll.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


Either way is fine with me. Bernie would definitely be my first choice but come November 6th, I will in fact cast my vote for Obama. I don't agree with every single thing he's done but in my view, he's a helluva lot better than any one of the delusional misfits being offered up by the GOP/T.P..



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
paul- 7
nobody- 2
gary johnson- 1
obama- 1
sanders- 2
huntsman- 1



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


signing statements mean just a hair more than nothing.

from wiki.



In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Supreme Court gave no weight to a signing statement in interpreting the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, according to that case's dissent (which included Justice Alito, a proponent of expanded signing statements when he worked in the Reagan Justice Department — see "Presidential Usage" below).



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Ron Paul

second line.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


While I agree with the premiss that signing statements do not have any legal merit, at least he's stating that he doesn't agree with the language and his administration won't do it.

If Obama just vetoed the bill or refused to sign it into law and Congress voted to override the veto making it law anyway, could he add the signing statement then? I believe he realized that the bill was going to become law regardless of how he felt about it and this was his only opportunity to express his opinion into the record via the signing statement.

This crappy law originated in Congress and that's where our real problem lies as well, not in the White House.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Ron Paul

2nd line



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


i understand that, but why even bother if there is nothing legally binding to it?
sorry, but i just don't believe anything the guy says. he shouldn't have signed it and then fought it tooth and nail.
useless words imho.


paul- 9
nobody- 2
gary johnson- 1
obama- 1
sanders- 2
huntsman- 1
edit on 4-1-2012 by rubbertramp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Ron Paul would be the only one that I would vote for thus far.

Obama hell no, NDAA patriot act mercenary black water/academi whilst claiming to 'officially end" the war in Iraq. I don't think so.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Blurps
 


yea, as far as i'm concerned obama is the equivalent of george bush the 3rd.

paul is beginning to run away with this vote.

paul- 10
nobody- 2
gary johnson- 1
obama- 1
sanders- 2
huntsman- 1

edit on 4-1-2012 by rubbertramp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I have no idea if this issue has been addressed on these forums as I am a new member, but are you aware that Rep Carl Levin stated that he changed the NDAA at the behest of the Obama administration?



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by rubbertramp
 


They did fight it tooth and nail as Indellkoffer clearly pointed out in her post. Furthermore, the President didn't get to close GITMO either despite his orders to do so, but that doesn't mean that he's not trying. I don't expect him to win every fight, but then I don't expect him to give up either. No law is unchangeable and I expect that this one will be rectified at some point in the future when the Congress is devoid of current delusional T.P. mindset.

Just keep in mind that it wasn't Obama who put the objectionable language into this bill, it was in fact the same GOP/T.P. that you are now pledging to support with your vote. Maybe you could explain to me just how that fixes anything.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

RON PAUL



Because I think murdering another million innocent civilians and 10 more years of war is a bad thing.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Paul



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure you are not understanding me. Carl Levin stated the original legislation did not include American Citizens, at the behest of the Obama Administration they changed it to INCLUDE American Citizens, then the Obama Administration went on a save face spree and stated that it would "veto" the bill because of the "objectionable" language that they had Congress include in the first place. So, I correct myself for not going further into the details of my original post. But as far as I can see the Obama administration fought "tooth* and nail" to make sure that American Citizens can be treated like prisoners of war.

edit on 4-1-2012 by Blurps because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


obama is prez, if he disagrees he should not sign. plain and simple.
i'm so tired of excuses, nothing personal towards you, but it's time he stood up to those telling him what to do.
he did not have to sign it.

from wiki.



The Senate later adopted by a 99 to 1 vote a compromise amendment, based upon a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which preserves current law concerning U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens detained within the United States.[24] Senator Feinstein has argued that current law does not allow the indefinite detention of American citizens, while the Obama Administration and Senators John McCain and Carl Levin have argued that it does.[7]



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
paul- 12
nobody- 2
gary johnson- 1
obama- 1
sanders- 2
huntsman- 1



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join